And what does that protected blank page say ?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:CheckUser/Log?cuSearchType=targetcuSearch=Wexperts
--
John Vandenberg
-Original Message-
From: John Vandenberg jay...@gmail.com
To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Sent:
Um.. no we're not.
Here, we're talking about bringing back BASIC because it's so much
more readable. *yawn*
-Original Message-
From: Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com
To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Sent: Wed, Jul 8, 2009 12:13 am
Subject: Re:
My entire point Neil was simply that, short-time-to-learn should also be a
consideration.? To me, a language that borrows heavily from an *already known*
source like English or even BASIC is easier to learn, than one which requires
that every command be learned again without any prior
In a message dated 7/8/2009 3:23:57 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
use...@tonal.clara.co.uk writes:
For example, how would you write something like, say, this artificial
example:
{{#switch:
{{#iferror: {{#expr: {{{1}}} + {{{2}}} }} | error | correct }}
| error = that's an error
| correct =
In a message dated 7/8/2009 11:51:04 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
peter_jac...@gmx.net writes:
There are two thousand years of
struggling factions of christianity and libraries full of
interpretations of bible verses. You cannot ignore this
and propose that the bible verse can speak for
In a message dated 7/6/2009 12:12:15 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
stevag...@gmail.com writes:
Your point is made, understood, and soundly rebutted. An
english-like language is not desirable, feasible, or going to
happen.
--
I propose that A) you are not the authority
I think what Tim was saying is that this magic link would only be for raw
bible citations, not for templated ones.
That is Gen 4:2 instead of {{biblequotex|Gen|4|2}}
The raw citation would be magically linked to the wikisource KJV. That
would be super. Then *if* someone feels the need to
In a message dated 7/6/2009 11:46:18 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
stv...@gmail.com writes:
..if you dislike Lua, Python, etc. because they aren't similar enough
to English, then Neil's offering: PRINT THE NUMBER OF CHARACTERS
BEFORE THE FIRST OCCURRENCE OF THE
COLON CHARACTER IN THE... makes
Of course you've hit the nail right on the head.
I don't think we want to create a brand-new additional language that people
have to learn just to code for Wikipedia.? What we'd want to do, is use an
existing language, so that some people can jump right in with both feet and
others, who want
We can quote autobiographies in terms of what the deity has to say about
themselves.
It's a primary source, not original research when quoted.? Only original in the
first-form.
That is, we can't publish it by itself, but we can quote it, with other sources.
Or it's true, which would mean
Yes I mean PRINT is far more obvious what it's doing.? Most programmers can
understand what ADD, COUNT or FORMAT is supposed to do, in general.? Sure you
could just use / or ~ or ^ but it's not obvious what they do without a
manual.
Me: Compromising between efficiently terse syntax and
Funny Wycliffe is the only one who states clearly that God created everything
from nothing.
http://toolserver.org/~magnus/biblebay.php?booknumber=bookname=Genesisrange=1%3A1source=doit=Do+it
-Original Message-
From: George Herbert george.herb...@gmail.com
To: English
Not sure I'm exactly following that.
Are you suggesting creating methods with inputs and outputs out of underlying
templates and then allowing those methods to be called directly, so essentially
building a higher-level language out of these templates as the tools ?
You'd have to build
I noticed as I was fixing up one article that we appearently have a tag
bibleverse that links to *one specific* website.
I'm not comfortable with that sort of approach. It seems to highly favor a
particular bible website over other similar ones.
Don't we have a similar issue when linking to a
In a message dated 7/5/2009 11:10:42 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk writes:
For things like biblical quotations, it would seem that this is a
marvellous niche for Wikisource, if we can figure out an elegant way
to do it and keep the user functionality.
In a message dated 7/5/2009 11:12:15 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
stv...@gmail.com writes:
Hm. But is it a local sort of website?
What are you implying by that?
I have no idea what you mean.
Will
**
Make your summer sizzle with fast and easy recipes for
In a message dated 7/5/2009 8:32:09 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
tstarl...@wikimedia.org writes:
Then whenever
someone types something that looks like a bible verse reference in
plain text, MediaWiki would automatically convert it to a link. For
cultural neutrality it would obviously have to
Well I think you know that isn't what I said.
You half-read what I wrote and responded.
Creating even higher barriers for people isn't the way to openness.
I don't know if programmability by a non-technical users is a major
requirement.
-Original Message-
From: Steve
In a message dated 7/3/2009 1:45:59 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
mor...@gmail.com writes:
Do you really think any of these would be a higher barrier for entry
than the current template and parser-functions system? Possibly the
current system is more egalitarian only in that it is painful for
In a message dated 7/3/2009 9:45:32 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
simetrical+wikil...@gmail.com writes:
Happily, it's not necessary that the *average* user be able to
contribute to programming.
--
Let me just point out that I never stated the above in the first place.
The
The language chosen will hopefully be as ENGLISH-like as possible, even it
that means it requires more typing.? The hyper-complex and excessively
structured codes of most languages make it difficult for the vast majority of
our contributors to even try to make a break into them.
In addition
In a message dated 7/1/2009 5:05:46 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
andrewrtur...@googlemail.com writes:
You're suggesting that [[WP:FICT]] and presumably other specific
guidelines should be allowed to depart from the central guideline which would
just
become a default guideline to be applied
First define right.
In a message dated 7/1/2009 9:14:20 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
arrom...@rahul.net writes:
-- Modify WP:IAR to say that rules can be violated if they prevent doing
what's right, rather than only if they prevent improving the encyclopedia.
**Make your
Isn't do what's right the same as assume good faith and assume the
assumption of good faith ?
The no-mans-land between don't try to inflict malicious harm and report
evidence-based statements is a big fat gray one.
In a message dated 7/1/2009 11:17:48 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
Protecting people is really very broad isn't it?
How about If the publication of certain information on a subject would
lead a reasonable person to believe that it poses a credible threat to the
subject's life.
Much narrower.
Will Johnson
In a message dated 7/1/2009 12:11:52 P.M.
Was there rationale given for the stifling ? That's the issue. If it's
reported in Al Jazeera and stifled on Wikipedia is there some explanation
given for why?
**
Make your summer sizzle with fast and easy recipes for the
grill.
Or since reporting on people and events can have negative effects in
general including death, are we now not to report on people and events if those
effects are negative toward us or ours? But it's evidently OK using the NYT
double-standard to report on them if they are negative toward the
In a message dated 6/30/2009 10:34:24 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
apoc2...@gmail.com writes:
The reason to suppress the news
of David Rohde's kidnapping is not mainly to improve Wikipedia, but to
protect Rohde.
---
Suppressing the news can't be said to improve
In a message dated 6/30/2009 11:21:17 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
dgoodma...@gmail.com writes:
Most (or almost all) people would enforce a rule
like do no harm much more strongly when the harm is to named
individuals whom they are aware of , and who are similar to them, and
when they judge
In a message dated 6/30/2009 11:35:33 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
s...@eskimo.com writes:
But we suppress news *all the time*.
If I added to our [[Shawarma]] article the news that I had one
for lunch today, that fact would be suppressed in a heartbeat,
and rightly so.
Can someone explain how reporting that he was kidnapped would endanger his
life? At least how would it endanger it any further than the kidnapping in
the first place?
Will
**
Make your summer sizzle with fast and easy recipes for the
grill.
In a message dated 6/29/2009 11:42:48 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
ragesoss+wikipe...@gmail.com writes:
It would raise his profile, indicate that Western media had taken
notice of the kidnapping, and therefore raise his value to the
kidnappers (either his value as a negotiating chip or his
But explain how naming them would have endangered them any further than they
already were.? How is their name a bargaining chip or whatever the logic is.
-Original Message-
From: Sam Blacketer sam.blacke...@googlemail.com
To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Sent:
Explain first how you know that the kidnappers don't already know who they've
captured when they've captured them.? Every person carries identity papers and
as a side-note, I would expect they would have targeted a person *just because*
they were famous for some reason.
Do you understand
George you would have to show that, the action of suppression had a causative
effect.
But no one has shown that.? Rather what's happened is that a big ethics debate
has erupted over learning that the NYTimes actively recruits others media
outlets to suppress stories for some vague claim of
In a message dated 6/28/2009 8:35:38 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
fredb...@fairpoint.net writes:
Please finish the job, if you can. Clearly, business, organizations, and
towns can also suffer both embarrassment and damages from libel and
unfounded negative information.
Hold on. You said
In a message dated 6/26/2009 5:12:03 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
carcharot...@googlemail.com writes:
Worth quoting here:
Wikipedia could not be reached for comment.
-
The coffee I had this morning was crappy. The coffee could not be reached
for comment.
Wikipedia is not
OK but apply it.
Who do you ask at Wikipedia for comment.
And how do you state Wikipedia could not be reached for comment ?
Metonymy example: The White House supports the bill (using The White
House instead of the President. The President is not like The White
House, but there is
I want to remind everything that the issue as to why the URL's weren't
included *supposedly* wasn't that the standard URL is too long, but
rather just that one side wanted the timestamp as they say, and the
other didn't. Personally it sounds to me like they are completely
fudging the
This file says its in the public domain.
Yes Joe but.
Durova's point, with which I agree, is that they improperly cited their source.
They lifted the picture *from* Wikipedia, and then cited the underlying source.
This normally implies I actually went to the source and viewed the image
directly
One would *hope* (although I'm not sure I expect it) that a writer at Wired
would know how to properly cite a primary reference through a secondary
citation.? I don't think this is an issue with our page, it is standard
practice when citing.? Some people are sloppy I agree, but when found out
Are links created by templates nofollowed or followed?
That is, someone creates a template like {{Brittanica|Edward VI}}
or whatever.
What's the follow treatment ?
Will
-Original Message-
From: David Gerard dger...@gmail.com
To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Sent: Wed,
As a brief aside, when you sign up at wired, they send you a
verification email.
In that verification email... they paste your password.
Bizarre. You'd think something like Wired would be a bit more
security conscious than to do that.
-Original Message-
From: Durova
Hi welcome to Wikipedia.
Are you a journalist or other type of paid researcher?
If so, please click here so we can begin billing you 49 cents per
minute while you browse our site.
Thank you and have a nice day.
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
In a message dated 6/21/2009 3:02:38 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
cormag...@gmail.com writes:
But I was struck by how in the LRB review of Andrew's book, the reviewer
singled out the collaboratively-written afterword as better written than
Andrew's book, which he found full of interest but
A little silly when the article quotes someone saying that you could find
out a person's religion.
I think most of us would clearly be wary of it because you could find out
what sort of *porn/sex* I like. I don't care if you know my religion (I'm
the spawn of Satan.)
I mean just imagine if
-Original Message-
From: Ken Arromdee arrom...@rahul.net
To: wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Sent: Mon, 8 Jun 2009 2:50 pm
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] A new solution for the BLP dilemma
Was he merely silent about the issue, or did he say I own the
copyright, go
ahead and host it
The person who
In a message dated 6/7/2009 7:15:03 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
wiki...@googlemail.com writes:
Unsurprising indeed. I get the impression, from projects such as Knol,
that
Google is something of an admirer of the Wikipedia model.
-
Knol however is only collaborative on the
In a message dated 6/5/2009 10:48:36 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
philippe.w...@gmail.com writes:
Pardon the dumb question, but do we have a {{nomirror}} or similar
feature? If so, some combination of {{noindex}}, {{nomirror}}, and
flagged revisions might be a temporary panacea...
-Original Message-
From: Durova nadezhda.dur...@gmail.com
To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Sent: Fri, 5 Jun 2009 3:06 pm
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] A new solution for the BLP dilemma
Negative information was sourced to talk shows in the form of copyvio
rehostings on YouTube
-Original Message-
From: Durova nadezhda.dur...@gmail.com
To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Sent: Fri, 5 Jun 2009 3:54 pm
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] A new solution for the BLP dilemma
It is to be hoped that Wikipedians can hold a mailing list conversation
without inflicting
-Original Message-
From: Durova nadezhda.dur...@gmail.com
To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Sent: Fri, 5 Jun 2009 8:12 pm
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] A new solution for the BLP dilemma
These threads would be much shorter if the links provided actually got
read
for the
-Original Message-
From: Durova nadezhda.dur...@gmail.com
To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Sent: Fri, 5 Jun 2009 8:49 pm
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] A new solution for the BLP dilemma
The cplsanchez.info site is the impersonator's site.
-
Or its the
-Original Message-
From: Ian Woollard ian.wooll...@gmail.com
To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Sent: Thu, 4 Jun 2009 3:32 pm
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] A new solution for the BLP dilemma
2009/6/4 Durova nadezhda.dur...@gmail.com
Wikipedia articles that present material
-Original Message-
From: Durova nadezhda.dur...@gmail.com
To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Sent: Thu, 4 Jun 2009 4:33 pm
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] A new solution for the BLP dilemma
Mirrors don't get such high search rank as Wikipedia. Most people who
search Google never
-Original Message-
From: Durova nadezhda.dur...@gmail.com
To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Sent: Thu, 4 Jun 2009 4:55 pm
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] A new solution for the BLP dilemma
Obviously the bids don't cite Wikipedia. It's not uncommon, though,
for the
decision
-Original Message-
From: Durova nadezhda.dur...@gmail.com
To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Sent: Thu, 4 Jun 2009 5:16 pm
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] A new solution for the BLP dilemma
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Rand_Fishkin
One of several
-Original Message-
From: Durova nadezhda.dur...@gmail.com
To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Sent: Thu, 4 Jun 2009 5:43 pm
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] A new solution for the BLP dilemma
The proposal is to noindex upon the subject's request. Isn't it best
to let
the people
In a message dated 5/28/2009 6:17:06 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
brewh...@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca writes:
I hav been placed on moderation for feeding a troll.
-
I don't remember it that way. Maybe you could expand on that a bit.
Will
**Cooking
Actually I think providing dosage information would *avoid* much more harm
than it would cause.
Most people use books on drugs to check up on their prescriptions and
educate themselves.
If the doctors mistakenly prescribed 200mg tablets when the standard dosage
is 20mg, then I'm sure you'd
In a message dated 5/26/2009 10:39:37 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
thomas.dal...@gmail.com writes:
I would hope the pharmacist that filled the prescription would spot
something like that. I'm not sure people second guessing their doctors
will have a net benefit...
---
Then
-Original Message-
From: Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com
To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Sent: Tue, 26 May 2009 1:27 pm
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Docs look to Wikipedia for condition info:
Manhattan Research
2009/5/26 wjhon...@aol.com:
In a message dated
-Original Message-
From: Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net
To: fredb...@fairpoint.net; English Wikipedia
wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Sent: Tue, 26 May 2009 5:04 pm
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Intellipedia
Why Wikipedia and Intellipedia (CIA's version of Wikipedia) can add
Value
for
In a message dated 5/25/2009 8:23:02 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
nawr...@gmail.com writes:
it's roughly analogous
to why we don't include instructions on how to make bombs.
-
Well sheet.
I've been following these instructions for a while now already!
In a message dated 5/24/2009 12:11:40 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
thomas.dal...@gmail.com writes:
At any rate, the person would have to sue the editor, not the project,
and
the editor could stand on the basis of simply quoting the PDR.
Could they sue other people that have edited the
In a message dated 5/24/2009 12:11:40 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
thomas.dal...@gmail.com writes:
There is a big difference between a specialist encyclopaedia like PDR
and a general one like Wikipedia.
-
Yes the difference is, we re-report what all the specialist encyclopedias
Of course I agree with you Carcharoth. When you revert vandalism, you
should make sure you're not reverting to previous vandalism.
But what was asked was what if you are reverting to *incorrect*
information. That's not the same as reverting vandalism. We cannot expect
each
vandalism
In a message dated 5/23/2009 9:02:12 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
dgoodma...@gmail.com writes:
information on standard dosage,
information that we have made the policy decision to omit.
I think this a particularly stupid decision.
---
Would you be willing to post here a direct
To the new group of enforcers, please elect one member of your Supreme
Council to attend our next meeting.
Will the shadow BEHIND the shadow Johnson
**
A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. See yours in just 2 easy
steps!
In a message dated 5/8/2009 1:30:01 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
george.herb...@gmail.com writes:
Is that the Tuesday There-Is-No-Cabal-Cabal, the Blue
There-Is-No-Cabal-Cabal, or Mrs Cake?
--
The Cabal is a myth.
Please provide your address so that one of our staff can visit you for
In a message dated 5/8/2009 1:37:43 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
smo...@gmail.com writes:
(One additional problem is that it will create bureaucracy --
Wikipedians love bureaucracy and this would turn into something like a
rolling Israel-Palestine ArbCom. I don't think that that would be a
-Original Message-
From: Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com
To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Sent: Thu, 7 May 2009 5:09 pm
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] The sky is falling
2009/5/8 wjhon...@aol.com:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boo_(programming_language)
Result:
This
-Original Message-
From: Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.com
To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Sent: Tue, 5 May 2009 11:09 pm
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Wikialarm
Well, yes, but it claims to be free. I guess they start charging
later?
First the bait, then
In a message dated 5/5/2009 11:10:50 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
sainto...@telus.net writes:
Twitter and the short attention span of those who
favour it turn historical insight into inanity. Linking the wine-dark
sea to the later Peloponnesian Wars already separates us from its
In a message dated 5/5/2009 12:31:07 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
ft2.w...@gmail.com writes:
- user#217869: pov warring!!
- @83476238 not so!
- @217869 is so!!
- @83476238 not so!
- @both: u blocked 24 hrs 3rr
Redundant. I suggest replacing the 100 most
In a message dated 5/5/2009 12:42:15 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
ft2.w...@gmail.com writes:
It raises the interesting philosophical question, when is the meaning in
the
message, and when is it in the decoder? And what if it's in neither or
both?
---
The problem is wetware. I
In a message dated 5/5/2009 12:43:23 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
ft2.w...@gmail.com writes:
Skip the [[]], not needed. All uppercase or numbers following a TP:
(or
equivalent one character symbol)... or even forbid all uppercase except as
used in links
FT2
-
Business Model: We'll tell you when someone changes your page, and you
pay us for doing that.
Will
-Original Message-
From: Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.com
To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Sent: Tue, 5 May 2009 10:54 pm
Subject: [WikiEN-l] Wikialarm
Spotted
-Original Message-
From: Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.com
To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Sent: Mon, 4 May 2009 5:11 pm
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Twitterpedia will win
The Peloponnesian War (431-404BC): Athens and its empire fought the
Peloponnesian League, led by
In a message dated 5/2/2009 1:16:39 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
oskarsigvards...@gmail.com writes:
It's entirely plausible to conceive of a world where
wikipedia didn't exist and Encarta would be listed as the first hit
when you searched for James Clerk Maxwell, or whatever you were
-Original Message-
From: Andrew Lih andrew@gmail.com
To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Sent: Thu, 30 Apr 2009 12:01 am
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Taxman denies Wikipedia UK charity status
On Wed, Apr 29, 2009 at 6:06 PM, wjhon...@aol.com wrote:
Gwern is criticizing the
-Original Message-
From: Andrew Lih andrew@gmail.com
To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Sent: Thu, 30 Apr 2009 1:16 am
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Taxman denies Wikipedia UK charity status
Nearly every public web site or publicly archived mailing list
strongly
-Original Message-
From: Ray Saintonge sainto...@telus.net
I'm sure that my comments were consistent with the statement to which I
was replying, and which you conveniently omitted. In all probability,
my use of you might very well have been equivalent to the more
stylistically awkward
-Original Message-
From: Ray Saintonge sainto...@telus.net
To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Sent: Tue, 28 Apr 2009 2:53 pm
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Notability in Wikipedia
We mostly don't know, and mostly have no way of knowing, whether the
publishers of 19th century
Gwern is criticizing the article. The Wiki-En operates under US
copyright law. In the US you may quote an entire copyrighted work if
your purpose is to criticize/critique it.
That seems like what Gwern did here.
Will
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
In a message dated 4/28/2009 12:30:47 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
doc.wikipe...@ntlworld.com writes:
And all that information will probably be [[WP:OR]], since I doubt that
the media bothered doing a Jimbo's pants: where are they now follow-up
a few months later. ;)
In a message dated 4/28/2009 12:30:58 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
sainto...@telus.net writes:
Requiring the author
to explain why a property is notable makes it easier to have shifting
goalposts for notability to satisfy the AfD denizens.
-
We have always placed the burden
In a message dated 4/28/2009 1:15:13 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
sainto...@telus.net writes:
They're not unreliable either. I prefer to site my sources as precisely
as possible, and trust the reader to decide the reliability of those
sources for himself. Dictating to a reader that only our
In a message dated 4/28/2009 1:15:09 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
doc.wikipe...@ntlworld.com writes:
We have always placed the burden of proof-of-notability on the
contributing
author, not on the rest of the AfD posters. That's been true across
each
AfD for notability that I've
In a message dated 4/28/2009 6:34:21 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
doc.wikipe...@ntlworld.com writes:
I disagree that the burden of proof is on the contributing author. The
burden is on those wishing to delete something to achieve a consensus to
delete.
--
That's right, but
In a message dated 4/28/2009 9:07:27 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
sainto...@telus.net writes:
If someone wants to dispute that the
contributor's source is not reliable, a blanket statement about that
without evidence is an assumption of the contributor's bad faith.
--
The issue in
In a message dated 4/28/2009 10:14:47 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
sainto...@telus.net writes:
But you aren't even allowing editors to use judgement when you dictate
what is reliable. You're substituting your judgement for theirs.
--
By you and you're are you referring to me
In a message dated 4/28/2009 12:50:30 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
carcharot...@googlemail.com writes:
The debate over whether some discussions are better held at a
centralised, specialised venue, or on the article talk page, is a
long one. There are advantages and disadvantages to both
EC, you agree to the terms of service when you sign up. If you fail to
actually read them, you alone are at fault.
You would have to show something like the contract is so confusing that no
sensible person could understand it. It's not the point of whether you can
today find it, it's the
In a message dated 4/27/2009 11:12:44 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
sainto...@telus.net writes:
Yes, and, absent any agreement to the contrary, any one of those same
authors may grant a free licence.
I'm very suspicious of this claim.
If I and seven other own a piece of property, I
In a message dated 4/27/2009 11:27:27 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
carcharot...@googlemail.com writes:
Yes, the sources we have are unlikely to be wrong about the
architectural merits, and quite possibly the building will be
mentioned in some other local history books - it is just that this
In a message dated 4/27/2009 11:39:26 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
wikim...@inbox.org writes:
http://depts.washington.edu/uwcopy/Creating_Copyright/Ownership_Factors/Joint.php
---
I do not recognize some random webpage, regardless of being on a UW site as
being
In a message dated 4/27/2009 11:47:09 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
doc.wikipe...@ntlworld.com writes:
Google books is fine, as is google itself.
Neither is a substitute for common sense.
---
The point being that now we can actually answer a question such as Was the
7th Duke of
In a message dated 4/27/2009 12:06:59 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
doc.wikipe...@ntlworld.com writes:
You are missing the point. I should not have to. If we have reasonably
trustworthy information on something that commonsense tells us has some
level of enduring significance, then finding a
In a message dated 4/27/2009 1:01:28 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
doc.wikipe...@ntlworld.com writes:
To be precise, the case study I had in mind was (and I can't find the
afd - it was some years ago) an old village church. The sources were 1)
a write-up on the church's website giving its
201 - 300 of 549 matches
Mail list logo
